On Saturday, December 12, 2009 11:27 AM, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
> Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> > On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 16:46:12 -0800, Arthur Barstow
> > <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote:
> >
> >> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a Last Call Working
> >> Draft of the following specs:
> >>
> >> 1. Server-Sent Events
> >> http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/
> >>
> >> 2. Web SQL Database
> >> http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/
> >>
> >> 3. Web Sockets API
> >> http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/
> >>
> >> 4. Web Storage
> >> http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/
> >>
> >> 5. Web Workers
> >> http://dev.w3.org/html5/workers/
> >>
> >> This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to "record the group's
> >> decision to request advancement" to LCWD. Note that as specified in
> >> the Process Document [PD], a Working Group's Last Call announcement
> >> is a signal that:
> >
> > Opera is not convinced that webdatabase is sufficiently clear and
> > supported to be a last call draft. However we support the publication
> > of the other drafts mentioned as last call working drafts.
> >
>
> My personal position is the same as the above. While I support all the
> other specifications proceeding to LC, I think that more work needs to be
> done in order for webdatabase to proceed to the next step. Punting to a
> particular implementation (in this case, a version of SQLite) as a
> normative part of a specification is unprecedented in standards that this
> WG has released.
At Microsoft, our position is similar on Web Database. We don't believe that relying on a particular version of SQLite is a good basis for long term interoperability. My opinion is that the database industry has spent a lot of time trying to standardise a dialect of SQL with only limited success and there's no reason to believe the WebApps working group is a good venue to try to do better. If this was a goal, we probably wouldn't start with the SQLite flavour of SQL either.
We don't believe that the WebSockets API spec is sufficiently mature to move to Last Call. I don't think "Many fundamental concepts from HTML5 are used by this specification" is an adequate reference for the language included in a standalone W3C document intended to become a standard. Ian's recommendation to "[use] the WHATWG "complete.html" version of the spec" implies to me that the document is incomplete as it stands. Also, if the protocol and the API specs should be treated as part of the same thing even though published in different venues then doesn't it make sense to keep them in lock-step together?
I'd appreciate some guidance from the chairs about whether they consider a document with this structure ready to move forward.
Cheers,
Adrian.